Why is creating undead Evil?

[Segev]

The irony of it is that BOED takes the most flak for excessive symmetry - inventing diseases and poisons that only work on Evil characters, as a mirror to the regular diseases and poisons that Evil characters use as weapons.


IMO, when it comes to Good and Evil, asymmetry makes more sense.

Asymmetry is fine and dandy if you built the system for it, but D&D really didn't. BoED and BoVD have tons of issues, and the "ravages" thing is definitely one of them. But if you want alignment tags to mean something, they need to actually have equal mechanical weight. "You must be this alignment" or "you cannot be the opposed alignment" to cast this would be one way to go that doesn't require asymmetry at all while allowing for the asymmetric moral "weight" of actions that are aligned. You could also state outright that "you must be good to cast [good] spells" and "while anybody can cast an [evil] spell, doing so is an evil act," that doesn't change that you really need to have it be an evil act by more than fiat. Casting it needs to somehow clearly relate to what the word "evil" means in common language, or you once again make it possible to have what anybody would agree is a paragon of virtue who is neutral to evil on the technicality that he does the equivalent of wearing emo/goth/punk clothing, which has been fiat-stated to be "an evil act."

[icefractal]

The "corruption" angle could work, except that it runs hard into "actions determine alignment, not vice-versa", and the latter principle is too important from a player-agency perspective to sacrifice.

Meaning that instead of Animate Dead moving the caster towards evil because it itself is an evil action, it just moves their alignment toward evil, and (in this model) that pushes/compels them to do more evil things. Ie. you murder because you're evil, rather than you're evil because you murder people.

So, like - why is Bob the Necromancer evil? Because he made a bunch of zombies.
And the zombies caused problems? No, they just stand there guarding his tower.
So what's so bad about him? He murdered all his rivals, intentionally caused a local famine to corner the grain market, and disfigures anyone who he doesn't think is deferential enough.
So, not really the zombies then? Well, he wasn't a bad person until he started animating the dead. The more he did it, the crueler and less scrupulous he got.

This model (proscriptive alignment) was more the case in earlier editions, and certain things (like the Helm of Opposite Alignment) assume it and don't really make sense in the 3.x descriptive alignment paradigm. But as mentioned, I prefer the latter overall, by a significant margin.

[hamishspence]

Helm of Opposite Alignment is a good example of "alignment is about what you're willing to do, not about what you have done".

But it's not the only one. There's the Morality Undone spell in Fiendish Codex 1, there's the way Always Evil creatures are described in the 3.5 MM glossary (born evil) and so on.

"Evil magic" being the sort of thing that corrupts the mind, and when exposed to it, making one "a worse person, more open to committing other forms of evil" is very traditional in fiction.


The trick is making sure both you and the DM are on the same page about the characters alignment (has it changed yet, or not) and if it has changed, what the consequences are.

[Calthropstu]

Nope. Nothing you've written here maker the character evil for choosing an aesthetic that is "icky".

I could as factually and as meaningfully say all magic is tainted and that only evil characters use it. Any who claim otherwise are evil for holding their own way of doing things superior to any other way.

You certainly can. And if you wish to house rule that, go right ahead. But most of us understand that the game creators thought differently. Maybe they knew the inherent power such extreme mionmancy held, and made it evil so most gms would ban it. Maybe they felt dealing with the literal antithesis of life should be considered evil. Maybe they thought it was just too creepy to be anything but evil. Maybe they decided to roll randomly on the alignment chart and came up with evil. Whatever the game creators reasoning was, IT WAS THEIR CALL TO MAKE.

And numerous justifications have been posted in this thread. Dislike it all you like. Change it when you run games. That is one of the best parts of d&d/pf. Don't like something? Run it differently. But carrying on about how the creators of the game were wrong for disagreeing with you? Do I need to say how bad this makes you look?

[Segev]

This model (proscriptive alignment) was more the case in earlier editions, and certain things (like the Helm of Opposite Alignment) assume it and don't really make sense in the 3.x descriptive alignment paradigm. But as mentioned, I prefer the latter overall, by a significant margin.

Magical curses compelling you to have a personality change are fine, even with descriptive alignment. All your morals are inverted, all your ethics are inverted. You now are fine with anything your conscience once pricked you about, or are squeamish about things you once did with selfish abandon. Heck, that might be an interesting way to make it a curse even for Neutral characters: the lines they held before are swapped, so the things that they did that were less-than-good now make them feel more uncomfortable, while the things they balked at are things they're more comfortable with.

You certainly can. And if you wish to house rule that, go right ahead. But most of us understand that the game creators thought differently. Maybe they knew the inherent power such extreme mionmancy held, and made it evil so most gms would ban it. Maybe they felt dealing with the literal antithesis of life should be considered evil. Maybe they thought it was just too creepy to be anything but evil. Maybe they decided to roll randomly on the alignment chart and came up with evil. Whatever the game creators reasoning was, IT WAS THEIR CALL TO MAKE.

And numerous justifications have been posted in this thread. Dislike it all you like. Change it when you run games. That is one of the best parts of d&d/pf. Don't like something? Run it differently. But carrying on about how the creators of the game were wrong for disagreeing with you? Do I need to say how bad this makes you look?

You again are acting like I don't want animate dead to be [evil]. I don't know how many times I can repeat that I don't mind it being [evil], or even that I like it being [evil], but that I find "it's evil because, uh, it is" to be bad design. Let's take icefractal's example he used for prescriptive rather than descriptive alignment and the corruption angle, which I repost here for reference:

So, like - why is Bob the Necromancer evil? Because he made a bunch of zombies.
And the zombies caused problems? No, they just stand there guarding his tower.
So what's so bad about him? He murdered all his rivals, intentionally caused a local famine to corner the grain market, and disfigures anyone who he doesn't think is deferential enough.
So, not really the zombies then? Well, he wasn't a bad person until he started animating the dead. The more he did it, the crueler and less scrupulous he got.

...and change it a little to make my point, hopefully:

So, like - why is Bob the Necromancer evil? Because he made a bunch of zombies.
And the zombies caused problems? No, they just stand there guarding his tower.
So what's so bad about him? He made a bunch of zombies, and they sometimes drive off people who try to sneak into his tower.
The Baron's guards do the same thing if people try to sneak into his keep, too, and he's not evil. But he didn't make zombies.

Note how here, Bob the Necromancer isn't...actually doing anything evil, except making zombies. He's not hurting anybody, there's no reason to thwart him, and he's no worse than the rich merchant who keeps hired guards to protect his manor. Heck, if Bob loans out zombies to plow some fields when farmers are sick or injured so their crops get planted on time, he might even be called good...if he weren't fiat-labeled evil.

This is a problem. If he animates a bunch of zombies, anybody who knows why that's evil should have no question that Bob is at best neutral for the willingness to do whatever it is that makes it evil. Like the unspecified "act of utter evil" that is part of the lichdom process, there should be something that, in order to actually cast animate dead, no good person would feel comfortable doing. Note that just "becoming a lich" isn't evil by itself; it's that there is some act of horrific wickedness that is part of the process.

Again, hopefully for the last time, I am not trying to argue that animate dead should not have the [evil] tag. I am arguing that it's not living up to its tag.

[Calthropstu]

Magical curses compelling you to have a personality change are fine, even with descriptive alignment. All your morals are inverted, all your ethics are inverted. You now are fine with anything your conscience once pricked you about, or are squeamish about things you once did with selfish abandon. Heck, that might be an interesting way to make it a curse even for Neutral characters: the lines they held before are swapped, so the things that they did that were less-than-good now make them feel more uncomfortable, while the things they balked at are things they're more comfortable with.



You again are acting like I don't want animate dead to be [evil]. I don't know how many times I can repeat that I don't mind it being [evil], or even that I like it being [evil], but that I find "it's evil because, uh, it is" to be bad design. Let's take icefractal's example he used for prescriptive rather than descriptive alignment and the corruption angle, which I repost here for reference:

...and change it a little to make my point, hopefully:

So, like - why is Bob the Necromancer evil? Because he made a bunch of zombies.
And the zombies caused problems? No, they just stand there guarding his tower.
So what's so bad about him? He made a bunch of zombies, and they sometimes drive off people who try to sneak into his tower.
The Baron's guards do the same thing if people try to sneak into his keep, too, and he's not evil. But he didn't make zombies.

Note how here, Bob the Necromancer isn't...actually doing anything evil, except making zombies. He's not hurting anybody, there's no reason to thwart him, and he's no worse than the rich merchant who keeps hired guards to protect his manor. Heck, if Bob loans out zombies to plow some fields when farmers are sick or injured so their crops get planted on time, he might even be called good...if he weren't fiat-labeled evil.

This is a problem. If he animates a bunch of zombies, anybody who knows why that's evil should have no question that Bob is at best neutral for the willingness to do whatever it is that makes it evil. Like the unspecified "act of utter evil" that is part of the lichdom process, there should be something that, in order to actually cast animate dead, no good person would feel comfortable doing. Note that just "becoming a lich" isn't evil by itself; it's that there is some act of horrific wickedness that is part of the process.

Again, hopefully for the last time, I am not trying to argue that animate dead should not have the [evil] tag. I am arguing that it's not living up to its tag.

Oh, it's perfectly fine. Until Bob dies. Or otherwise loses control. And the zombies begin wandering aimlessly killing people. Or someone else comes along and wrests control. Zombies will literally follow ANY order. The propensity for catastrophe is too high to ignore. And a necromancer understands these risks, and takes them anyway.

[NigelWalmsley]

Oh, it's perfectly fine. Until Bob dies. Or otherwise loses control. And the zombies begin wandering aimlessly killing people. Or someone else comes along and wrests control. Zombies will literally follow ANY order. The propensity for catastrophe is too high to ignore. And a necromancer understands these risks, and takes them anyway.

All those things apply to Animated Objects too, but that spell doesn't get the [Evil] tag.

[anthon]

in AD&D it was possible to have a non evil undead character, but most undead drew on the negative energy plane, which was mostly occupied by things like Lich Lords and soul sucking whispy horrors.

Mummies were also undead, but positive energy powered.


The problem with undeath is the concept of how you perceive

Good vs. Nature
Life vs. Good

if Life is good, then undeath is cheating life, and thus, betraying good.
if Nature is good, then undeath is unnatural, and thus, a violation of what is good.

By watching the original Pet Cemetery, or numerous Zombie films, you can get an idea of what's flawed with a half baked Lazarus effect.

Only the full Lazarus effect is considered acceptable.

In Death Becomes Her, the witchy women end up sustaining their immortality, but their bodies continue to decay and crumble to dust.

This is also viewed in BeetleJuice as a film concept.

The notion of desecrating a corpse is the idea that the spirit would occupy a less than perfect cadaver, thus experiencing disability, pain, and suffering, possibly putrification of the vital organs.

Vampires with worms crawling through their veins. Did you know bodies can explode from gases caused by microbes in the digestive tract? Nasty, smelly business.

People tend to say "Cleanliness is next to Godliness". Which would make Puetrification next to Damnation, being the opposite extreme.


Not all "undead" are gross though. Incorporeal undead are a totally different story. In China they have stories about Ghost hunters and so on, and in the west, they also have this theme of unsettled spirits, which must "head toward the light" and "reach the other side". But in general, spirits of the dead are not considered de-facto evil, unlike a zombie or vampire.

Rather, something like a Revenant or Wraith or angry spirit bent on revenge might be.

In the movie Wraith - an 80s film about a Car, the Hero of the story is a Wraith, a dead spirit of Vengeance, but it plays out more like The count of Monte Cristo, with the Wraith as a badass antihero, like a Batman type, rather than a monster. But for the victims, he's definitely a monster.

In other cinema, spirits of the dead can actually be good aiigned, some even being akin to angels, or on an angelic promotion track.


I think the point is Undead Alignment is Nuanced,
and if you have a physical form, it tends to lean toward evil.

[Segev]

in AD&D it was possible to have a non evil undead character, but most undead drew on the negative energy plane, which was mostly occupied by things like Lich Lords and soul sucking whispy horrors.

Mummies were also undead, but positive energy powered.


The problem with undeath is the concept of how you perceive

Good vs. Nature
Life vs. Good

if Life is good, then undeath is cheating life, and thus, betraying good.
if Nature is good, then undeath is unnatural, and thus, a violation of what is good.

By watching the original Pet Cemetery, or numerous Zombie films, you can get an idea of what's flawed with a half baked Lazarus effect.

Only the full Lazarus effect is considered acceptable.

In Death Becomes Her, the witchy women end up sustaining their immortality, but their bodies continue to decay and crumble to dust.

This is also viewed in BeetleJuice as a film concept.

The notion of desecrating a corpse is the idea that the spirit would occupy a less than perfect cadaver, thus experiencing disability, pain, and suffering, possibly putrification of the vital organs.

Vampires with worms crawling through their veins. Did you know bodies can explode from gases caused by microbes in the digestive tract? Nasty, smelly business.

People tend to say "Cleanliness is next to Godliness". Which would make Puetrification next to Damnation, being the opposite extreme.


Not all "undead" are gross though. Incorporeal undead are a totally different story. In China they have stories about Ghost hunters and so on, and in the west, they also have this theme of unsettled spirits, which must "head toward the light" and "reach the other side". But in general, spirits of the dead are not considered de-facto evil, unlike a zombie or vampire.

Rather, something like a Revenant or Wraith or angry spirit bent on revenge might be.

In the movie Wraith - an 80s film about a Car, the Hero of the story is a Wraith, a dead spirit of Vengeance, but it plays out more like The count of Monte Cristo, with the Wraith as a badass antihero, like a Batman type, rather than a monster. But for the victims, he's definitely a monster.

In other cinema, spirits of the dead can actually be good aiigned, some even being akin to angels, or on an angelic promotion track.


I think the point is Undead Alignment is Nuanced,
and if you have a physical form, it tends to lean toward evil.

All valid thematic imagery, but it breaks down unless you equate "life" with "good," in which case the very concept that "afterlife" is a thing for Good characters is ... iffy. The desire to make these equivalencies, but only while dealing with imagery of undeath, leads to inconsistencies.

It also still begs the question about animated objects. How are those not "mockeries of life?" I'm fine with these things being as established, but I want the reasons to be better than "because we said so and aesthetics and stuff." Even if those are the motivations, the underlying reasons need to be better.

[Calthropstu]

All those things apply to Animated Objects too, but that spell doesn't get the [Evil] tag.

Negatory. Animate objects, the spell, has a duration. It will only ever listen to one, and only one, person. It will only attack those people the caster designates. Which means, animated objects can't be usurped easily. Undead can be EASILY controlled by just about anyone, and default to "kill everyone" and last FOREVER. Eventually, they WILL come around and kill someone.

[Segev]

Negatory. Animate objects, the spell, has a duration. It will only ever listen to one, and only one, person. It will only attack those people the caster designates. Which means, animated objects can't be usurped easily. Undead can be EASILY controlled by just about anyone, and default to "kill everyone" and last FOREVER. Eventually, they WILL come around and kill someone.

You may as well say that forging swords is an evil act, then.

You never know but that some villainous bandits might get ahold of them.

[Calthropstu]

You may as well say that forging swords is an evil act, then.

You never know but that some villainous bandits might get ahold of them.

A sword does not act on its own, it does not default to a stance of "kill everything" and it doesn't wander off. A sword is carried by someone, a skeleton stands on its own. A sword CAN be used to kill. But it won't go off on its own to kill. It also doesn't last forever (rust is a thing).

[Unavenger]

Negatory. Animate objects, the spell, has a duration. It will only ever listen to one, and only one, person. It will only attack those people the caster designates. Which means, animated objects can't be usurped easily. Undead can be EASILY controlled by just about anyone, and default to "kill everyone" and last FOREVER. Eventually, they WILL come around and kill someone.

It's a bad example, granted, but how about fetch, which just picks up a creature from anywhere and plonks it somewhere potentially dangerous? Most golem construction isn't evil despite the fact that some of them can easily go berserk. Animate with the spirit never gives you control over the resulting creature and it's exalted, even if you use it to call a known fallen angel in specific. Create deathless gives you no control over the (relatively powerful, armed and pretty explicitly warlike) undying soldier that it creates, and is [good]. And the fact is that animate dead is always [evil] no matter what precautions you take against the undead escaping, so it can't be a consequentialist argument about what the undead might theoretically do that makes it [evil].

[Segev]

A sword does not act on its own, it does not default to a stance of "kill everything" and it doesn't wander off. A sword is carried by someone, a skeleton stands on its own. A sword CAN be used to kill. But it won't go off on its own to kill. It also doesn't last forever (rust is a thing).

Neither do skeletons or zombies animated by animate dead under the base rules. They don't do anything without orders.

And it's casting the spell that's the evil act. Bob could do nothing but animate some skeletons to polish his entry hall floor, supervising them the whole time, and then destroying them (or having them destroy themselves), and it would still be an evil act to cast the spell. Any argument predicated on the notion that the undead could slip his control and go off and do evil things fails because it is casting the spell, not what you do with them afterwards, that's the evil act. I mean, obviously, if you then have them go do evil, that's additional evil acts, but casting the spell itself is an evil act. So trying to push off the reason why it's evil to the additional acts of intentional or negligent evil Bob could commit once he has his animated minions fails to address the [evil] tag, itself.

[Telok]

A sword does not act on its own, it does not default to a stance of "kill everything" and it doesn't wander off. A sword is carried by someone, a skeleton stands on its own. A sword CAN be used to kill. But it won't go off on its own to kill. It also doesn't last forever (rust is a thing).

Clay golems. Once the creator is gone and the golem goes berserk there's no stopping it short of destroying it. Plus it's more resistant to damage and spells than an equal cr zombie.

Rogue zombies and skeletons are at least totally at the mercy of anyone with Control Undead and vulnerable to all clerics.

[Efrate]

The clause about do nothing or follow last orders kind of precludes the hate life kill anything angle as well. To say nothing of that's the (incorrect) result, not the act of casting. I also hate how even a spell at 3rd level more or less cancels out up to 9th level magic.

Maybe something to do with belief? Belief influences reality per the outer planes and gods, maybe enough believe it evil so it then is? Not satisfying and leads to a super slippery slope, but at least tangentially possible in universe. Ages of belief shaped reality like it shaped the gods, or visa versa. Something something divine mechanations keep it that way.

I do not like it, but it could be.

[Segev]

Maybe something to do with belief? Belief influences reality per the outer planes and gods, maybe enough believe it evil so it then is? Not satisfying and leads to a super slippery slope, but at least tangentially possible in universe. Ages of belief shaped reality like it shaped the gods, or visa versa. Something something divine mechanations keep it that way.

I do not like it, but it could be.

I still think the easiest way to make it work is to figure out something that is part of casting the spell that is equivalent to pulling wings off of butterflies, kicking puppies, or deliberately hurting innocent people's feelings. None of those examples feel right, but if they or something similar could be made thematic to tie into it and doable with casting without requiring extra material components, it would suit the requirements. Something that is unquestionably evil even if "justified" by a "greater good" you'll do with the undead created (and whatever level of ethical responsibility one might need to take to prevent further evil from their existence).

Like, one way to create Slaymates without actually having to have a spell to do so (since there isn't one provided by the RAW, though I think I would permit create undead to work if you found a candidate corpse) is to rely on the means by which they spontaneously arise: arrange for enough children to die from the betrayal of their guardians that statistically, some of them will spontaneously arise as Slaymates. Unquestionably evil!

You don't have to make it THAT BAD for the undead-creating spells, but by making it something that ties into an act, even of petty evil, that is actively part of the casting because of the nature of the magic you're doing, you justify the [evil] tag, ensure that no Good caster can "unwittingly" commit the evil act by never being told the spell is evil, and avoid all the "but what if I...?" questions about how to mitigate the reasons why it's evil. It also makes the target of the spell irrelevant, since the wickedness is unrelated to the target. That makes it superior to any justification based on the target being denied peace, or unable to raise from the dead, or the like, as one might get from a volunteer army who knew what they were getting into, or using it only on animal corpses, or the like.

But we're stuck with it having to be part of the casting, since preparing the spell isn't evil (so it can't be how you prepare the black onyx, for example, since that would happen when you prepare it and thus happens even if you then never cast it). This narrows down the options considerably, since it has to be something you can do in one standard action that only requires words, gestures, and black onyx. (Also, "preparing the black onyx" would mean you couldn't just pick up random black onyx - should such be available - and cast it, whereas the rules permit just that.)

[hamishspence]

Personally, I tend to tie it to other related instances of "negative energy being used in an evil way" - in this universe, negative energy and evil energy are connected - and while it's possible to use it in a nonevil way (Inflict Wounds spells, for example), that requires special techniques to prevent evil energy leaking in and tainting the negative energy.

And none of the undead-raising spells are the beneficiary of these techniques.

According to BOVD, Undead themselves leak evil energy that can taint an area, just like a fiend does (but weaker, it takes a powerful undead to leak energy enough to taint an area by dwelling in it, but any fiend, even a weak one, can taint an area by dwelling in it long-term).

[Telok]

According to BOVD, Undead themselves leak evil energy that can taint an area, just like a fiend does (but weaker, it takes a powerful undead to leak energy enough to taint an area by dwelling in it, but any fiend, even a weak one, can taint an area by dwelling in it long-term).

Problems.
1) Necropolitans don't have that effect in their descriptions. Although they were (I think) printed after BoVD. In fact I don't think that appears in any undead write-ups that I remember. Any ways, that says that even the LG baelnorns, liches, ghosts, etc., are all emitting evil... radiation I guess? And those non-evil undead won't ping Detect Evil spells when they lack the [evil] subtype. Emitting evil & corruption is something that should ping the spell.

2) Fiends & company aren't powered by negative energy. They're [evil] (even when they're not evil), but nothing links them to negative energy. It also plays merry hob with that idiotic succubus paladin they published. Just making stuff more evil by walking past is probably some form of the "lol pally fall" stupidity.

3) Living spells. Yeah. A living spell of Energy Drain isn't evil at any level. Granted the army of wights it's going to spawn is, but the living spell is pretty much a wandering vortex of negative evergy spamming "sucks to be you" all over the place and isn't evil in any way.

[hamishspence]

Problems.
1) Necropolitans don't have that effect in their descriptions. Although they were (I think) printed after BoVD. In fact I don't think that appears in any undead write-ups that I remember. Any ways, that says that even the LG baelnorns, liches, ghosts, etc., are all emitting evil... radiation I guess? And those non-evil undead won't ping Detect Evil spells when they lack the [evil] subtype. Emitting evil & corruption is something that should ping the spell.

Except - undead, despite lacking the [Evil] subtype, do ping on Detect Evil regardless of their actual alignment.


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm

Evil creature
Undead
Evil outsider
Cleric of an evil deity

It does not say "Evil Undead" - just "Undead".


Undead don't "leak negative energy" - they leak evil energy - just like fiends, but they leak less of it.

3) Living spells. Yeah. A living spell of Energy Drain isn't evil at any level. Granted the army of wights it's going to spawn is, but the living spell is pretty much a wandering vortex of negative evergy spamming "sucks to be you" all over the place and isn't evil in any way.

Pure negative energy isn't evil - but undead don't have pure negative energy - they have evil-tainted negative energy. Even the non-evil undead are unlucky enough to have it.

Just making stuff more evil by walking past is probably some form of the "lol pally fall" stupidity.

It requires the long-term presence of the fiend in the particular location to have that effect. If the fiend moves around, the tainting effect doesn't become a problem.

The only beings that radiate enough evil that neutral beings may be expected to become evil just from that presence, are evil deities. "An evil deity walking the material plane" generates the second-highest level of "Evil pollution" given in BOVD.

[Segev]

It requires the long-term presence of the fiend in the particular location to have that effect. If the fiend moves around, the tainting effect doesn't become a problem.

No problem, then. Bob the Necromancer is nomadic, and marches his coterie of undead around the world, never visiting the same place more than once a decade or so. Never any time for the evil leakage to become a problem. Or he has his undead minions perform active good deeds, greatly offsetting their evil leakage with good production.


Again: I think focusing on the effect of undead existing as the reason creating them is evil is a mistake. You need to make the process itself involve a directly evil act. It can't even be indirect, because if it's something like "you're bribing evil spirits with black onyx to torture creatures you never see nor hear to make undead with their souls" or something, you could construct a scenario where somebody doesn't know they're buying an evil act. Which means it's only an evil act on your part if you know what you're really doing. (Evil does require agency. If you don't know the consequences, you lack agency wrt those consequences.)

[hamishspence]

No problem, then. Bob the Necromancer is nomadic, and marches his coterie of undead around the world, never visiting the same place more than once a decade or so. Never any time for the evil leakage to become a problem. Or he has his undead minions perform active good deeds, greatly offsetting their evil leakage with good production.

And avoiding animating many undead in the same location, yes.

Through doing this, Bob can "maintain a Neutral alignment". Or even a Good alignment, if the DM is feeling generous. Heroes of Horror has the Dread Necromancer class which has "any nongood" but a regular Necromancer might be Good.

"Performing evil acts is a basic feature of the class, but some dread necromancers manage to balance evil acts with good intentions, remaining solidly neutral (most PC dread necromancers fall into this category)".


Creating Undead will always be evil by 3.5 BoVD RAW - but there's hints that it's not very evil. You have to animate dozens of undead in one location, to cause the same amount of "Evil pollution" that one murder does.

[Segev]

And avoiding animating many undead in the same location, yes.

Through doing this, Bob can "maintain a Neutral alignment". Or even a Good alignment, if the DM is feeling generous. Heroes of Horror has the Dread Necromancer class which has "any nongood" but a regular Necromancer might be Good.

"Performing evil acts is a basic feature of the class, but some dread necromancers manage to balance evil acts with good intentions, remaining solidly neutral (most PC dread necromancers fall into this category)".


Creating Undead will always be evil by 3.5 BoVD RAW - but there's hints that it's not very evil. You have to animate dozens of undead in one location, to cause the same amount of "Evil pollution" that one murder does.

Except it doesn't seem to be the casting of the spell, but the having of undead, that is evil in this formulation.

What we need is a way that the casting of the spell is evil.

[hamishspence]

Except it doesn't seem to be the casting of the spell, but the having of undead, that is evil in this formulation.

As written, if you animate dozens of undead, and immediately after all that animation is done, you destroy the lot (possibly as an experiment) you will create a tainted spot. It isn't just the presence of the undead - it's the creation of the undead, that causes the tainted spot.

What we need is a way that the casting of the spell is evil.

For the same reason any spell with the [evil] tag is evil - it taps into evil energy - and that energy has a mild effect on the caster.

Casting protection from Good is an evil act - even though it doesn't do anything harmful, and the way it protects the mind from attack by creatures of all alignments, might make it very useful against, say, mind flayers.

Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person). The protection does not prevent such effects from targeting the protected creature, but it suppresses the effect for the duration of the protection from evil effect. If the protection from evil effect ends before the effect granting mental control does, the would-be controller would then be able to mentally command the controlled creature. Likewise, the barrier keeps out a possessing life force but does not expel one if it is in place before the spell is cast. This second effect works regardless of alignment.

Imagine you're a wizard who doesn't know Protection from Evil, who comes across a cache of scrolls of Protection from Good - and you use them, purely to protect yourself from mind-control or possession, when going up against mind-controllers or possessors. As written by BoVD, each time you cast the spell, you're committing an Evil act, regardless of the fact that the spell is not actually harming anything, and is protecting someone - you. Possibly your allies if you're using the spell on them too.

[noob]

We should make a thread "why is protection from good evil": it is even more clear nonsense.

[hamishspence]

We should make a thread "why is protection from good evil": it is even more clear nonsense.

It's the mirror of "Protection from Evil" - its primary effect, is to ensure that an enemy's nonEvil summoned creatures cannot harm you, and make it more difficult for Good creatures of any kind to harm you.

Any Neutral or Good summoned monster that attempts to hit you in melee, automatically fails. And when any Good creature shoots a ranged attack at you, you have a bonus to AC, and when any Good creature attempts to use an effect that allows saves against it, you have a bonus to those saves.

[noob]

It's the mirror of "Protection from Evil" - its primary effect, is to ensure that an enemy's nonEvil summoned creatures cannot harm you, and make it more difficult for Good creatures of any kind to harm you.

Any Neutral or Good summoned monster that attempts to hit you in melee, automatically fails. And when any Good creature shoots a ranged attack at you, you have a bonus to AC, and when any Good creature attempts to use an effect that allows saves against it, you have a bonus to those saves.

It would be very useful for good creatures to protect each other in case of misunderstandings.

[hamishspence]

It would. But it requires atonement afterward in order to avoid the corruption that comes with excessive use of it. That's just the way Evil magic works - even Evil protective magic.

[Telok]

Except - undead, despite lacking the [Evil] subtype, do ping on Detect Evil regardless of their actual alignment.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm

Ah, my bad on the memory of that one. I guess necropolitan paladin is out then because if you hang around anywhere for a couple days it's spreading evil.

Unfortunately it still doesn't link negative energy to evil. That's still an effect of evil, not of negative energy. Although I suppose that you could consider that to make Animate Dead [evil]. We still have issues with things like... I forget exactly and can't check right now, does Fell Animate tag spells with [evil]? Why do I feel that there's a way to get spells that have both the good and evil tags?

[hamishspence]

Ah, my bad on the memory of that one. I guess necropolitan paladin is out then because if you hang around anywhere for a couple days it's spreading evil.

How high level you are may make the difference. It specifically says powerful undead (the examples given were liches and nightshades) produce an effect by being anywhere long-term. Long-term is also something up to the DM to define - it might be months or even years.

Why do I feel that there's a way to get spells that have both the good and evil tags?

And yes, it's possible to give an [evil] spell the good tag, or vice versa, via the Consecrate Spell and Corrupt spell feats in Complete Divine - there are no restrictions on what spells they can be applied to, and the feats don't require divine casters, either - though they do require you to have the appropriate alignments, and it's pretty pointless to use them on non-damaging spells.

As written, a Good wizard could cast a Consecrated Animate Dead spell, and it would have both the [evil] tag and the [good] tag.

Unfortunately it still doesn't link negative energy to evil. That's still an effect of evil, not of negative energy.

The most iconic example of "negative energy linked to evil" is the cleric's channelling ability - Good clerics can only channel positive, Evil clerics can only channel negative, Neutral clerics of Neutral gods have to pick one and can't change it, and, the act of channelling, to turn (or rebuke) Undead is specifically stated to be Good if turning, and Evil if rebuking.


Hence my argument that certain negative energy things are tainted with Evil (the undead, even nonevil ones), and clerical Rebuke Undead powers.

And some are not (Inflict Wounds spells, and the Entropic Creature template).